--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400049 Date: 01/03/98 From: BILL MITCHELL Time: 11:19am \/To: RONNIE THOMPSON (Read 0 times) Subj: REVERSE QUESTION BM>> Get a 4 wheel drive, they have to exempt them because they BM>> can't be tested on the dyno. RT> Say what?? Where did you get this information, or should I RT> say MISinformation, from?? No, where did you get your misinformation from. I live here, and I've been through the tests. 4 wheel drive is exempt, they are allowing volunteers to take the test and 4 wheel drive is prohibited from taking the test. The reason given is that most 4 wheel drive vehicles should not be tested on equipment that they are using, which only allows one axle to spin. Yes, there are vehicles that have free wheeling hubs, but the majority of the SUVs these days don't, and don't belong on the dyno they are using. That includes the 3 jeeps I own. Ever tow one with the front axle off the ground? Same reason you cannot tow them by picking up the front wheels and tying the front wheels. Even with the transfercase in neutral there's a strain on them, which will cause them to spin while suspended. --- * Origin: The Right Place, Fort Lee, NJ USA(201)947-8231 (1:2604/539.11) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400050 Date: 01/03/98 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 01:28pm \/To: ROY WITT (Read 0 times) Subj: Engine Wanted Roy Witt wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason: RJT> Is there stuff I can do to reverse that? RW> You can eliminate the EGR by going to an earlier manifold or an RW> aftermarket manifold without the EGR. The current '77 Monaco has one too, but it ain't connected, along with a bunch of other stuff that goes into that loop -- it was that way when I got the car. Doesn't seem to make that much difference one way or the other. RW> Since I'm really not a Mopar fan, I'm limited in my knowlege RW> here. But, you can just about eliminate anything you want, as RW> long as your state smog laws allow it. At this point in time we're looking at certain counties having emissions testing, and ex-gov bob casey tried to add twenty-some-odd more to the list, up to and including committing the state to a really large, long-term contract. There was enough of a public outcry about this when the election came along and the party in power wasn't any longer that they ended up pulling the plug on the extension of it, and the (current) governor told EPA they could take a hike... No telling whether or not that stuff will come back into play, or what, which is why I have not removed stuff like the air pump from my truck, though there's no belt on it. RJT> Or would I be better off just getting another engine and building RJT> it up from scratch? RW> Getting an earlier engine might be the way to go if you want to RW> eliminate the smog goodies. Or, go the other route, buy a 318 RW> (5.2L), o'drive transmission and the computer w/harness from a RW> wrecked Dakota...you'll get more HP and fuel economy. I hear RW> that the Dakota is a fast truck... Now *there* is an interesting thought. I'm going to have to look into that, sticking another tranny in there before I put the engine in the truck would probably be a *whole* lot easier. RW>> Basically, your engine lost compression and some cam lobe. Put RW>> it back with aftermarket stuff and it'll make horsepower again. RJT> What would I need to do here? I've been thinking about a cam, RJT> since I'll be putting that engine into a truck anyhow, and RJT> want different performance than what it had, but don't know RJT> enough about it yet to decide *which* cam I oughta go with. I RJT> hear that there's one that's optimized for towing/RV use, think RJT> that might be the ticket? RW> If that's the use you intend for the truck. It's one of them. I have a back-of-the-truck camper sitting out in the yard here, and am thinking about moving to a pull-behind unit later on. RW> That towing/rv cam will give you lots of low-end torque for RW> moving the vehicle(s). Usually in the idle to 3000rpm range. RJT> I dunno about compression, you may be right in that the RJT> compression ratios of these two engines were different, but I RJT> don't recall the spec offhand. (Grabbing handy Chilton RJT> book...) I see where the 318 went from 9.2 in '68 to 8.8 in RJT> '70 down to 8.5 (!) in '75. Jeez. So what do you do to fix RJT> this? RW> You can use that 9.2 head in today's world. You might even get RW> away with shaving them a little to raise them to 9.5, but not RW> anything more than that with the gasoline we have today. So it's the heads that determine this, then. RW> Without a computer to control the knock/pinging, you're between RW> a rock and a hard place with anything higher. Unless you want RW> to buy premium racing gas? Nah, that'd be too hard to find while traveling. Premium gas is for the most part too overpriced compared to regular and mid-grade stuff, so I usually just optimize things for the mid-grade, if that's what I'm going to run, though lately I've been buying mostly regular. RJT> Oh, and there's stuff here about the horsepower, too: RJT> "Beginning in 1972, horsepower and torque are _net_ figures. RJT> They are measured at the rear of the transmission with all RJT> accessories installed and operating." Hmm. I know that with RJT> that '70 I had manual steering and brakes, no A/C, no power RJT> 'nuthin' and got top mileage of 18-20 on the highway, while RJT> with the '75 it had power steering and brakes plus a/c (that RJT> didn't work) and I never did better than about 16 with that one. RW> Try finding an overdrive transmission. Mopar must make one RW> for the 318 (5.2L) in their Dakota and Jeeps. I'll look into it. As things stand right now, I've gotta get a torque converter at least, since the one that's in the car *won't* work in the truck... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400051 Date: 01/03/98 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 01:54pm \/To: ROY WITT (Read 0 times) Subj: Battery sizes Roy Witt wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason: RW> On, 29 Dec 97 at 18:17, RW> Roy J. Tellason was overheard shouting over the engine RW> noise, saying something to Roy Witt about "Battery sizes",: RW>> Yup! And then the air that you breath.. RJT> RJT> Easy fix... RJT> RJT> I have this button that says: "Balance the budget -- declare RJT> politicians a game species" RW> Now that one I like... You *really* oughta freq FILES from here, I'll bet that there's a lot of stuff in it that you'd like... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400052 Date: 01/03/98 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 01:55pm \/To: ROY WITT (Read 0 times) Subj: Hotrod Roy Witt wrote in a message to Mark Logsdon: RW> On, 31 Dec 97 at 19:50, RW> Mark Logsdon was overheard shouting over the engine noise, RW> saying something to Chris Zychski about "Hotrod",: CZ> RW>> MARS = Military radio. Was he ex-military? CZ>> CZ>> M.A.R.S. = Military Affiliated Relay System CZ>> ML> ML> Close. Military Affiliate Radio System. However, Roy's been a ham ML> for many years. I bet he knows what MARS means. RW> I was even there once...:) Did you sit next to Elvis on that UFO? :-) email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400053 Date: 01/03/98 From: JEREMY LOWREY Time: 7:34am \/To: JASON WEDEHASE (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: 700R4/TH350 swap .. Quoting [Jason Wedehase] From A Msg To [Jeremy Lowrey] .. JL> your meals and bear you can chug if you'll come do mine. :> JW> The trannies are the same length. The tailshaft is shorter JW> on the 700R4 but the main body is longer. They both measured to JW> exactly the same length from splinetip to splintetip. The shifter he JW> had was a B&M Megashifter, cable-op, so there were no mods there. JW> The wiring was done with a B&M Lockup Convertor Control box. That JW> was practically a "screw it onto the dash" mod. The driveshaft was JW> not modified in any way. Ok since there was an aftermarket shifter already that eliminates that (something I will have to do, twice actually since it's a floor-shift/dash-indicator). That aughta be fun to figure out, since the in-dash indicator is lever-operated... but it only shows 3 forward speeds so I guess I'll just scrap it. Does the B&M box allow any tuning at all, or is it just a closed loop to make the converter work? JW> I don't remember anythign about mounts... hmm... this was in JW> a 1963 Chevy pickup that had a 350/350 combo. Hmm... I'd think the mounts would have to be changed, even if just finding mounts that'd fit. Then again, could be wrong. :) Oh well, will just have to see. --- Telegard v3.09.g1/mL * Origin: FidoNet [Novatech-TX].[972-475-3833].[Texas] (1:124/7006) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400054 Date: 01/03/98 From: JEREMY LOWREY Time: 7:39am \/To: JASON WEDEHASE (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Transmission? .. Quoting [Jason Wedehase] From A Msg To [Jeremy Lowrey] .. JW> This might be what I was talking about in that last message. JW> It's from B&M, it's a little slider bar switch for setting your JW> convertor lockup point, butI know it also has the wires that go down JW> into the tranny. Two of my friends have the 700R4 on an old JW> mechanical ignition, carbed, Detroit Iron, regular Chevy 350. I dont think so, not for $180. :) I think that B&M box is just to make hte lockup work without any other controlling electronics. The setup I'm talking about is a full mockup of the original electronics that control the tranny. Allowing for software-controlled shift points etc, 100% configurable to your tastes (and easily changed, saved, edited out-of-car via laptop or even edited on the fly). That way you could go so far as to have 2 or 3 entirely different setups... 1 for daily driving, another for weekend warrior, and a third yet for all out at the track type activitys. Would be most interesting... JW> Exactly! And if you're going with OD, you might even be able JW> to go deeper into the gears than that! One of the two previously I don't know about that. :) The ratio isn't all that different, really. But it does knock about 1200 RPM off of high gear between the two (3rd in the TH350 and '4th' OD in the 700R4). So if I drop in gears steep enough to increase RPMs by 1200 at the same speed, then putting in the 700R4 would negate those changes (i.e. no RPM change at the same top-end speeds, but extreme acceleration changes getting there :) ). Would be well worth it, but probably hard to convince a potential buyer of the additional $1200 charge for 'just a transmission'. :) --- Telegard v3.09.g1/mL * Origin: FidoNet [Novatech-TX].[972-475-3833].[Texas] (1:124/7006) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400055 Date: 01/03/98 From: JOHN FAERBER Time: 02:31pm \/To: ROY WITT (Read 0 times) Subj: Which Transmission????? JF> Sure hope you are not saying it is the TH200 which was notorious for JF> failing early on? RW> The 200-4r is a newer transmission with overdrive..the RW> TH200 was aka the metric turbo hydro, which was a pile of junk... The only oness who liked that TH200 were the Trans repair shops that made a fortune replacing them! --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: * MacSavvy OS/2 BBS * Dallas, Texas * 972-250-4479 * (1:124/1208) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400056 Date: 01/02/98 From: MARC GERGES Time: 11:32pm \/To: SEAN DUNBAR (Read 0 times) Subj: Active Handling Salut Sean! MG> Besides it's not only the price of the car, it's also the running MG> costs. From what I can read here, a V8 is not really expensive to run MG> over there? Well, here it is. SD> It depends on the car. Lots of the newer V8 models are as SD> economical as the V6/I6 models, and some even as good as the 4 SD> cylinder models. So you seem to have quite bad 4cyl engines :) SD> Look at the new Corvette, it has an engine around 5.6 or 5.7L I SD> think (not sure on this, can someone help me out here?), and I SD> think it gets about 20-25 MPG on the highway. Mmmh... at higway speeds of 65-70, I assume? That's really fine for such a car, but with my inline 4 I expect at these speeds 40+ mpg. And you see, when fuel is expensive these things become important. SD> Gasoline is cheaper here though; it runs about $1.20/gallon for 93 SD> octane where I am It's another world, definitely... SD> (sorry, not sure how much per litre that would be..). I always have my calculator here when reading the automotive echo, to convert your miles, gallons and feet into something I can understand :) SD> My particular V8 is very expensive for me to run though; I SD> average $50-$75 per week in fuel alone (but I spend, on average, SD> an hour to two hours on the road per day too) So how many miles do you drive daily? cu .\\arc ...EchoMail: A Tagline distribution system. --- * Origin: sympathy for the debil (2:270/47) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400057 Date: 01/02/98 From: MARC GERGES Time: 11:00pm \/To: JASON WEDEHASE (Read 0 times) Subj: Forced Induction Salut Jason! MG> Mmmmh... I don't have the track numbers of the Eclipse, but those of MG> comparable cars... and they beat the Camaro on the Nurburgring by a MG> couple of seconds. I wouldn't bet if I were you :-) JW> They weren't that fast stock, I promise. A-ha. Here nearly all these comparos are made with stock cars. MG> Best acceleration and deceleration numbers are obtain with a wheelspin MG> of about 15%. JW> Interesting theory. Hmm.... Not really a theory. Of course numbers vary with tires, wheather, cars, road condition etc. But for usual street cars 15% has proven in various test as quite a good number, and that's why it is used for most anti lock braking systems: they oscillate around that 15% and try to match it as good as possible. cu .\\arc ...Macintosh: Just like Nintendo but fewer games available. --- * Origin: sympathy for the debil (2:270/47) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: F1400058 Date: 01/02/98 From: MARC GERGES Time: 11:05pm \/To: JOHN FAERBER (Read 0 times) Subj: REVERSE QUESTION Salut John! BM> They are not designed to be used in place of service brakes, but in BM> an emergency, they must be able to stop a vehicle. MG> In the last days i played around with the parking brake MG> a little bit to test it, and although mine (discs at MG> the front) is far better than the one of my sister's MG> car (drums at the back), there is a huge braking MG> distance and considerable fading braking from a MG> sluggish 40 to 0. I decided to do without at test at 90 JF> My understanding is that if a person puts their foot on the brake JF> pedal and absolutely NOTHING happens, setting the emergency brake JF> will lock up the rear wheels (thus the longer stopping distance) JF> allowing for steering control of the front wheels. When your rear wheels lock up, there's nothing with steering control - as soon as you touch the wheel, your car will go nuts. Hey, I often used my rear wheel hand brake to turn the car around... :) JF> Although the rear tires may be flat-spotted from this, if it helps JF> to avoid runnig into the back of a Semi Trailer it a cheap expense. If if really happens (and it will very seldom, as all brake systems have at least two circuits) I will put in the lowest possible gear and let the engine brake. OK, with my actual car I'll might use the hand brake too, as it goes on the front wheels, but I'll prefer to rely on the engine. cu .\\arc ...Santa is sending an elf down Lorena Bobbitt's chimney. --- * Origin: sympathy for the debil (2:270/47)